Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 21, 2014 10:00am-10:31am PDT

10:00 am
groups and city officials to get their input. that process was long and we got a lot of opinions on how to do it with many great ideas and it occurred to me during that what was thought of in the beginning we were at the wrong size and i keep thinking of goldilocks and three bears and we were too small and it didn't work, too big it wasn't going to work. what was the right size for us to commit for having everybody involved to have this sustained for a long time. that is the multiuse soul source. nobody came to help and i had to go out and find and darius moving forward. at least from my
10:01 am
perspective from the zinzanni's perspective we have been working on it since august 20th # , 2011. it was just bring back zinzanni in this day and age, i would like it to be here when i'm 128. so, it's the sole source for me. it's the reason to live i guess. so i want to thank you for your time. from my perspective it's always been sole source. >> just to trying to envision and having been involved previously with the hotel vitali when i was
10:02 am
on the board of supervisors to the idea of the transit museum and muni and transit and combining that with a relatively low height hotel i think i would see that as somewhat analogues situation. i think there are some similar tease if i'm not mistaken to that. today was an informational presentation. it was a treat for us to have you all come and speak today and appreciate the passion. we would love to have a tenant back in good standing and i for one would come back and see more from teatro zinzanni to come back and see some of your special appearances. perhaps jonathan if you can run through the next steps and this was informational for us and then it will go to the board of
10:03 am
supervisors. >> they will, the city admin code 2.6-1 is something only the board of supervisors can wave. there has to be a resolution heard and heard by the board at that point we'll bring an exclusive negotiating for their approval once the parties agree on the terms to that and that will launch a protsz -- process to design for the community and a term sheet for the board's approval and fees ability and moving on to entitlement and ceqa. >> i know this is an informational presentation but it does strike me that we as a commission should at
10:04 am
least have some position if not just saying we heard the presentation but we took a position on whether or not to support moving the board of supervisors sole source. >> i ask the question to articulate the sole source rational. colleagues, is there a sense that we would agree with a staff recommendation and urge that it go to the board of supervisors. >> i think that go on the record and there should be more of a formal endorsement to go to the board of supervisors. >> i don't think a formal motion is necessary and i think the clear directive unless i hear otherwise from my colleagues for that course of action to be pursued. >> i would be happy to have the concurrence. is that correct, colleagues?
10:05 am
>> yes. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> city clerk: item 12, request bay area air quality management district for waiver of ian you'll license fees related to area bike share stations on port property.
10:06 am
10:07 am
good evening commissioners, my name is connie doyle i'm with the port. i'm requesting a waiver. in addition this presentation will also request approval for the port property and an additional 12 months rental fee waiver if they are requested. provided as background this port commission approved 5 bike share spaces. please look at the current map. currently there are four bike share stations on port property. these stations from north to south the roundhouse plaza station on embarcadero and sampson and
10:08 am
embarcadero vale vallejo and embarcadero at stuart station which is also referred to as gap plaza and embarcadero at sphere station. here are a few edges of -- images of the bike station. the port approved the bike station. the station is not installed. the bikes are sponsors which are the bay area air quality management district and the transportation commission and san francisco municipal transportation agency requested a fee waiver for the program. this port commission approved this rental fee waiver and the main reasons are the program was expected to
10:09 am
benefit the public trust and the program was not expected to generate a profit for it's initial years. the status is it's launched in august 2013, very popular, heavily used and there have been no complaints about the stations on port property. the bikes on the station along embarcadero are the most popular. behind cal trans, the station and the roundhouse plaza station are among the top 10 stations. the harry brinls -- bridges plaza and the embarcadero route and this connects the ferry building regional transit providers with the employers in the northern water front and with our special events in the northern water front such as america's
10:10 am
cup and other water front destinations. this august the bikes are sponsors and bike share requested another 12 -month fee waiver for the extension of the program using the 2013 waiver criteria as a guide, the staff reviewed the program financial statement for the month and denld the program is not generating a profit. the program is generating revenue but at this time this revenue is # 5 percent of the program expenses so it doesn't meet it or exceed it. at this time it was determined there are no complaints about the program and based on that, the program is benefitting water front visitors and thus the public trust.
10:11 am
outside of staff time of evaluating the program, there expense on this program to date. for this reason staff recommends the waiver be extended for another 12 months. the resolution before you would amend the bikes are licensed to extend the rental fee waiver for the term of the license which will end december 2015 in the total area occupied. the program is expected to continue beyond the pilot period which was two years 2 years and the expansion is expected with funding from the funding from the bike share sponsors. the resolution for your consideration today would allow an expansion of the program location should they be requested to meet the location criteria provided in the staff report. this criteria considers view
10:12 am
corridors, d. a. disabilities acts. to on attain this request, base on staff research, bike share programs and other locations have taken a few years to look at the operational system generate a profit. should this program revenue still not meet or extended by year two, the data can be demonstrated through financial statements through the port director. an additional fee waiver would be granted. since there have been reports in the news about the bike share program i have invited the bike share program sponsors for the san francisco program to include bay area
10:13 am
air quality management district and the san francisco municipal transportation agency and also bike share in case you have additional questions. >> are there any of these stations anywhere else bids the -- besides the water front in >> yes they are all over the city. i have a map. they are primarily the financial district connecting with the regional transit providers for commuters. it's the goal in the program was to provide a transit option for the last mile of your transit connection from cal trans to the financial district. but i have invited mta and bay area air quality management district to expand the programs into
10:14 am
neighborhoods. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. my name is maddox for the program in san francisco and planner with sf mta. you asked about other stations in the system right now. there are a total of 35 stations in san francisco, part of the initial pilot roll out and they are spread out between our offices at market and van ness and the wo water front extending north and south of market street and soma and the financial district. we have plans and initially the project was supposed to have launched with 50 stations in san francisco and we have been founded for a year now and initially the plan was to distribute those areas i just described and when
10:15 am
we are able to make the purchase we'll expand beyond market street as far as castro and beyond that we are working with our regional partners to find a sponsor and lining up additional public funding and our initial planning work to show in san francisco that we could easily accommodate 2500 and that would basically cover the north east quad rapport -- quadrant of the city. >> that's a long time. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i know you are asking specifically on the waiver, before you get
10:16 am
to that discussion, could i understand lessons learned so far from the bicycle program in terms of, you know, i just observe myself by looking at it doesn't seem we have heavy usage yet and i don't know if it's lack of knowledge or we are finding that people they are not using it the way, i would like to have a little bit more sense of what is going on with the program and i understand we want to expand it more and agree the concept is good in the long run but what are the lessons so far on what is working and not working and about the fee waiver. >> it's an excellent program. the bike share program is a pilot study and the staff karen shum an is here to explain lessons learned so far. >> hi, good afternoon, i'm
10:17 am
with the bay area air quality management district. i would like to thank you for your support of the program so far. taking back and answering the previewing question, the program is assessing the fees ability of bike sharing not only in san francisco but to broaden the perspective we have broadened the program in other communities in the bay area. we have san jose, redwood city and palo alto and san francisco. we have more data to collect. we are actually finding that in san francisco it's been a phenomenal success even though we don't have enough stations to support it. we are not really in the neighborhoods yet. there is some use cases. the data is showing that it's heavily used. majority of the users are annual members, so they comprise
10:18 am
over 80 percent of the trip. we saw this cal trans station is the no. 1 site in san francisco, they are picking it up at cal trans, taking it to lunch, taking it for an afternoon sterol sdsh -- stroll along the water front and that's why you have 35 stations with the greatest amount of usage. it's a small number when you compare it to other areas along the parts of the world and one of the smaller systems compared to stations in chicago and new york. we are really at the beginning, but that said we are very very pleased with the 1 year results but we need more data and more time. >> did you set some goals for what you consider success? >> absolutely. for the bashgdz y area
10:19 am
air quality management district we are looking for producing the use in the community without using cars and we are looking at how that reduces air quality in greenhouse gases and get to lunch faster ways because they have the ability to travel further so other kinds of metrics. we have a list of them. i would be glad to tell you about them right now but we can also forward that information. >> we are trying to understand. obviously we would like to see this program be very successful but to understand, two of the
10:20 am
observations you are recording success and many are recording traffic on the streets in san francisco. we don't necessarily see what you are saying in terms of reduction of mobility in cars. i think it's going in the other direction right now. it would be nice to understand how that fits together. i'm going beyond the charter as far as the actual topic on the agenda but i think it's important for us to get the context on how the program is is operating. my question is it lack of stations, is it people don't know enough about it? what's going to make this program really successful in the long run. what i'm heeng -- hearing from you is that there is not enough stations? >> yes, not enough stations, not enough time and it's been
10:21 am
more than 300,000 trips taken with 280 bikes. in san francisco the program is very successful when you look at other communities in comparison, we see that it's very strong, the relationship between lack of infrastructure and numbers. so in san francisco, we do feel very confident that by being able to bring the other 15 stations to round out the pilot and as mentioned to double and triple it to bring it up 10 times, that's when we'll be able to truly grow into a pilot and become a transit alt -- tive -- alternative and compliment to make the fuel situation.
10:22 am
while there is still congestion we file we have been able to get people out of cars and move them around. >> thank you. that's amazing. >> then i guess my other question which is a port related question in terms of the fee waiver. i certainly understand where the program is getting up and running and we are not encountering any cost or so also not encountering any revenue opportunity. the question why to request looking for even 24 months out when it seems that another 12 months go if it's successful it would be nice to share. it's too early for us to have to commit to 24 months? >> we may, we are still
10:23 am
doing this for 12 months and this will result in the income statements annually and looking at bike sharing programs worldwide, the transfer to small business where it takes a couple years for a small business. >> i understand that totally, but we are committing so early, why commit so early or we kind of decide that this is something the port is going to do as a public community benefit and won't charge. but i'm just saying if we want to view it as an opportunity but to extend it even further or we recognize this is a community benefit and we committed to it one way or the other and we need to understand and right now it's
10:24 am
being presented that there is no consequence to the board. we are not really having to incur any cost involved but there could be a little revenue potential down the road. >> correct me if i am wrong, i think we have already approved that we want this pilot project on port property. anytime you have a pilot project you have to wait until you get the results and what we have discovered at this juncture in terms of having to pay fees for the site, it doesn't pencil out yet but as part of the pilot project will be granting a fee waiver and granting a short period of time but we've also said we want to support and articulate our support for the project. it's not a matter whether we'll look at the finances per say but when it comes back to us,es no cost to the board and we are getting a lot of
10:25 am
benefit, seems like very high numbers of usage and we should be seeing that number go up and it's a matter of when we want the policy to approve to allow that to go forward, is that right in >> yes. >> [inaudible] >> >> commissioner? >> i understand what commissioner whoo-hoo was saying, but kind
10:26 am
of a labor of love. it sounds like aiming until august, i can support that. it is a pilot program. we are not anything. if we support that -- [inaudible] i can support that. commissioner whoo-hoo what is your problem with it i would like to see it when the pilot project is is over. what is going to change now that you have some lessons learned. what are you going to do differently to increase the usage in programs and you are saying the five stations by themselves will never get you to do or you need x amount of investments, there are always choices and
10:27 am
you can increase your use and increase for better return. i'm trying to understand from where. i'm just saying, somebody, monique has just referenced, someone has done a projection that we don't think this is going to be financially feasible for the next three 3 years. that is something based on the fact that there are no more stations. >> that's based on stations cubed root the -- across the country and these take hold and like a new business they need a couple years. >> i understand that. it sounds like we are making assumptions. i would say from my standpoint it's a small thing and it is a labor of love, as we are trying do this as a business thing, i would say review it fwen, if not then we are doing it as a community benefit. >> we are not just waving it. the resolution says if the
10:28 am
bike share program is still not generating enough revenue to cover it's expenses and the financial statements are provided in a manner that prove that, then we would and the fee waiver is requested, then we would grant it. we are not just granting it blindly, we are saying we are willing to in advancing coming back to the port commission understanding how other bike share operators have operated offer a fee waiver for another 12 months if it's requested and the same conditions. >> why are you coming now? >> i think i appreciate the fact that you are trying to save the commission time from having do an analysis to loob at look at the
10:29 am
projections. >> i get my question, i'm trying to understand why come now then? why didn't wait until closer to the -- i guess what's the timing of coming to the commission now. i understand we don't necessarily want to take up a lot of commission time to keep coming back on one particular topic like this. >> what is the phrase? killing two birds with one stone. i was saying if they request it we would allow them to expand the program on the water front and if they request we would allow them to get a fee waiver if the program is still not generating revenue past expenses. it is doing very well. it's actually i think the revenue is $1.1 million and the expense are $1.3 million. it's not way off and not
10:30 am
generating any revenue. it is generating revenue. it could be profitable. >> so it's getting close. that's the other reason, because it seems like we are narrowing the gap and i don't see what the last month would say with an opportunity like this if the gap is more and more you have a cumulative number of 1.1 versus 1.3. >> that's what the issue is that the original waiver expired in august and you have to come to us with a rate and that is participatory. >> deputy director, yes, the reason we are here is because this was a 24 -month project that you approved, but you only approved the waiver for 1 year, for 12 months. that waiver has expired, we are here to request that


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on